Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

While chicago has a much larger network, it goes to many fewer places. funny how that works.

Can you explain this please? I get your point about ridership levels, but having approximately twice as many stations, spread out over a much larger track length would suggest to me that Chicago's network goes to more places.

[caltrane74]

Yeah, for as much as people — about the Toronto Subway, we do have something that most other cities don't, a streetcar network. And the new massive cars that are coming online a the next couple of months are huge, and will be a huge game changer. Plus, it looks, like the TTC is going to keep the old and the new streetcars in operation together to ensure there is proper capacity and there is no overcrowding on the line, until more of the additional order of cars is put into service. How about that?

Yes, the TTC wants to put in an order for an additional 60 cars, which would mean there will be more new streetcars, than there currently of the old streetcars.

260 cars to 240 cars.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by DrNest

Can you explain this please? I get your point about ridership levels, but having approximately twice as many stations, spread out over a much larger track length would suggest to me that Chicago's network goes to more places.

In theory I think you would be right, but the lack of bus service cuts down the reach of the rail line. Hence his quote, "it gets to fewer places"

[Innsertnamehere]

As I said, it basically only facilitates movement between the Loop and surrounding residential neighbourhoods. It may serve more physical locations, but it doesn't serve as many trips.

[WhipperSnapper]

Your actually comparing a modern city like Toronto to an old European capital? New York City loves the car. Manhattan just happens to be an island with limited access and a $6 fee to get on it. It's huge news when the city comissioners decide to close a lane of traffic because it happens once in a blue moon. It's hard to gauge but, Manhattan has a higher density of road infrastructure than Toronto. Beside seeing roads as individuals driving cars is small minded. The denser Toronto become, the more goods and services will use this fixed in place infrastructure.

The operational end of a 1.5 million plus office tower in Toronto is something to witness particularly those that envision massive 350 plus metre towers everywhere. I don't see Chicago's double decked streets as a viable option here either.

Originally Posted by isaidso

When a city grows to a certain size, you invest in infrastructure like rail which maximizes capacity. — backwards would be clinging on to less efficient ways of moving people like roads which, in turn, destines oneself to remaining a far smaller/less bustling metropolis. It's why in the world's big cities you see huge investment in efficient people movers like rail: Manhattan, Paris, London, Hong Kong? They build/plan to maximize the number of people that can move in, out, and around them. If they have to reduce car lanes downtown, that's what they do.

— backwards would be arguing that the rail line is full then concluding that we're maxed out. Cities that want to become big cities, build more rail, take more car lanes out, widen sidewalks, build more rail, and then do it all over again... and again... and again.

Toronto still thinks like it's a smaller city. It still thinks about limiting demands placed on transit (like you just did twice), rather than expanding the most efficient people mover we have: rail. That's — backwards if I ever saw it. If Toronto is to morph into a Manhattan or Hong Kong, it needs to start thinking like a big city.

London is packed with people because it has good rail and lots of it. — backwards would be viewing their roads as congested because they don't have enough car lanes. The truth is that London's too big and dense to have car lanes.

[caltrane74]

The loading docks at First Canadian Place and Scotia Plaza both over 2 million square feet, don't like that intimidating.

And it's rare to catch traffic moving in and out of the gates... I think I may have only seen a truck going into SP twice in my entire lifetime. And I've never seen a truck going into FCP, mind you don't hang out in the financial district much.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

While chicago has a much larger network, it goes to many fewer places. funny how that works.

Toronto transit is significantly better. 5 minute frequencies and it goes to my destination (or a fairly frequent bus for the last jump) rather than 15 minute frequencies and I have to take a cab from the station.

I think Metra Electric is actually the one of the most useful Chicago routes and it isn't on that map.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by DrNest

Can you explain this please? I get your point about ridership levels, but having approximately twice as many stations, spread out over a much larger track length would suggest to me that Chicago's network goes to more places.

Many of the Chicago stations are either in the middle of highways, heavy rail corridors through industrial land (SRT without SCC), or very low density residential. Outside of the loop, you can usually count on a long walk or cab ride to your actual destination from the nearest station. Feeder bus routes are infrequent at the best of times. Some of their metro lines have 15 to 20 minute frequencies for most of the day, so you can imagine how often feeder buses to those trains run.

Toronto, by comparison, has the lines running under Yonge and Bloor, streets with many actual destinations on them including shops, malls, restaurants, hotels, high density residential, etc. Feeder routes on major streets are fairly frequent (often 10 minutes).

Toronto's Spadina line would be one of the better Chicago lines on that map.

Airports, in Chicago are very well covered but I'm not sure it matters much to the locals. 192 carries 4,000 passengers per day, O'Hare Airport Station handles 11,500 passengers per day and Midway Station handles 9,500 passengers per day.


Recent Chicago ridership stats (order by date descending):
https://data.cityofchicago.org/Transport...ion-Entries-Monthly-Day-Type-A/t2rn-p8d7

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

As I said, it basically only facilitates movement between the Loop and surrounding residential neighbourhoods. It may serve more physical locations, but it doesn't serve as many trips.

I get you know, thanks.

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by rbt

Airports, in Chicago do have much much better service.

That's certainly the truth. I'm going to be in Chicago in a couple of weeks and am grateful that there's a quick, cheap and easy metro line from the airport to just two blocks from my hotel.

[caltrane74]

Don't forget your bulletproof! lol!

[OTSkyline]

I don't know Chicago that well so I can't comment on the physical location of the stations (and if these are in good locations) but I wanted to point out the main differences in the size of subway network (number of km's of rail) and the number of stations.

Toronto's subway system might be "OK" or offer good frequency but with 2 lines it doesnt serve a lot of ground. (Yes there are streetcars and this and that but for tourists and other people coming from out of town, asking them to take a bus somewhere to then take a streetcar for 10min and then transfer to a subway is a bit too much IMO). And people complain all the time that the system is too packed, clogged and there has been a cry for help for the Downtown Relief Line since many years ago.

So, my general opinion/question is, why hasn't Toronto expanded its subway system that much? (I've only heard of the Crosstown subway as a serious proposal/go ahead). It might be expensive but that's infrastructure for you.. and hey guess what, it's not going to get cheaper in the future...

[Innsertnamehere]

There are currently 3 projects funded in Toronto, and 2 more are in the provincial budget this spring. The subways are packed because Ford has cut service levels to allow for $10 million in annual savings.. Our idiotic mayor / council is willing to sacrifice a humane and attractive transit service so that people save $5 on their tax bill.

[WhipperSnapper]

Yeah, the subway is now being expanded. Commuter rail has seen massive improvement over the past decade as well.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by DrNest

Can you explain this please? I get your point about ridership levels, but having approximately twice as many stations, spread out over a much larger track length would suggest to me that Chicago's network goes to more places.

It's the same issue with the DC Metro. Radial networks become glorified commuter lines since they leave vast sections of the city unconnected. Chicago's L also does a lot of the "new-age" transit stuff like we have in the Spadina line which is carved into the Allen Expressway. A few lines but hug expressways which are dead zones for locations people want to go, unless you have good bus service feeding them they become useless stations that get low usage numbers.

Toronto system is the best at squeezing as much efficacy out of what it has. The system overall is inadequate but it works and gets large numbers largely because the city has pushed an aggressive feeder system with its bussss to get the majority of the city population to a subway station in 20 minutes (pending traffic and bus capacity issues of course).

When I was in DC at a glance the system looked impressive, especially for DC city propers small footprint but you quickly realize the system dosnt go many places at all, has poor frequencies, and transfer options which force you inbound to the downtown transfer to switch routes to go back outbound on a route which is more or less parallel (imagine having to go down to "transfer" at Union each time to get from St Clair a West Station - to St Clair station because no adequate East-West cross route exsists to get you that shorter distance).

I agree with the poster whom mentioned our streetcar network. Cities like SF and Boston also get a lot more practically out of their networks dude to the surface streetcars that act as lines themselves or feed into the subways.

Taking away a lane of Yonge won't change much. The street is a joke to drive on already, nobody trying to get anywhere quick uses Yonge.

[caltrane74]

The airport rail line will use DMU that are similar to Ottawa's O-Train with a possible conversion to Electric down the line. So they will be able to service more than the planned 4 stops. It is also being connected to the Bloor subway at Dundas West with a short underground connection. This should jump capacity by 10 fold at this one commuter transit station.

All of this along with the other incremental improvements will slowly build out rail capacity for the system. (Commuter, subway, rail-link, and streetcar)

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by DrNest

I agree, and have always said Toronto needs a much bigger and better transport system. Especially major expansion in the subway system. And I should emphasize 'major'.

It is criminal how decades of successive councils have wasted millions debating the expansion, but not actually done anything significant to widen the subway network. Until there is a much better subway and rail network to move people into/out and around Toronto, reducing the road capacity would be an insane thing to do.

I agree completely. A huge subway expansion, with tentacles reaching to all corners of the city, would be an ideal situation, but it's simply not workable in Toronot's political climate, where a suburban yokel like Ford has much more than a sniff at getting elected. Subway construction needs money, huge amounts of it, and raising revenue in Toronto is like pulling the teeth of a lion that's awake and ill-tempered. Nobody wants to broach the subject, except Wynne, who isn't even municipal.
I am more than happy with the $50-billion regional plan Metrolinx proposed several years ago, with its mixture of transit conveyances, because at least that was something tangible, which looked as if it would see action, and soon; it was exciting; but even that has been tinkered with in the interim. This city is just barely on this side of dysfunctional.

[WhipperSnapper]

Exactly how much room is there in the city's budget that can be put towards subway expansion? Even a hundred million per year would accomplish very little. Subway expansion rests with senior levels getting involved and the affects of the Harris era lasted long after he was ousted.

[Mister F]

^That's why Toronto needs a transit tax, it allows the city to expand transit instead of waiting for political gifts from the province and feds.

Originally Posted by DrNest

Taking away lanes to widen sidewalks will only lead to increased traffic congestion, or drive people out of the core because they don't want to be stuck in traffic. Explain to me how that is — backwards logic.

Using your logic, not widening the sidewalks will drive people out of the core because they don't want to be stuck on congested sidewalks. People already step out into the car lanes because the sidewalks are so crowded on Yonge, and it will only get worse in the future.

Trying to prioritize cars in a big city downtown is hopeless. Removing car capacity doesn't drive people out of the core, it makes the core more attractive. Downtown streets with tamed traffic tend to be more desirable places. The streets with the slowest traffic tend to be the ones with the most crowds - that's not a coincidence.

Toronto has several streets that are busy enough with pedestrians that they could not only be narrowed, but closed to traffic altogether. How great would it be if the busiest parts of Yonge looked like this and Queen looked like this? Both streets allow for deliveries btw.

[WhipperSnapper]

First Page ... Brookfield Place 2 is not in site prep.